MARYROSE02 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 [h=1]The Royal family is a bargain for Britain[/h][h=2]The repeated freezing of the Civil List merely adds to the monarchy's value, says Gerald Warner.[/h]The Duke of Edinburgh listens attentively to the Queen's speech Photo: Getty By Gerald Warner 7:25PM BST 23 Jun 2010 23 Comments Among the mind-boggling macroeconomic statistics rattled off by George Osborne in his Budgetstatement, one figure stood out in its extreme modesty: the £7.9 million Civil List payment to the Queen, frozen for the 21st year in succession. Allocated by John Major, as chancellor, in 1990, it has since lost 76 per cent of its value. The Queen must be alone among public-sector workers in accepting such a real terms reduction in income over so long a period. She is also unique in continuing to work aged 84. The official Treasury announcement stated: "Royal Household spending on support of The Queen in Her duties as Monarch in 2011 will fall from £15.1 million to £14.9 million. The £7 million difference will be financed from the Civil List Reserve." Because the Queen prudently set aside savings in the earlier years, when the £7.9 million payment was worth more, now that the proverbial rainy day has arrived she has reserves to draw upon. Gordon Brown, at his weekly audiences, might profitably have taken advice from her majesty on the prudent management of public funds. The Civil List was established in 1760, when George III surrendered the income from the Crown Estate to the government in exchange for a fixed annual payment from the Treasury. The taxpayer gained an exceptional bargain from that arrangement: last year, total government spending on all functions of the monarchy amounted to £7.9 million from the Civil List, £22.6 million in grants-in-aid for communications, travel and property from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and £4.6 million from other departments. That total of £35.1 million is dwarfed by the £226.5 million profit passed to the Treasury by the Crown Estate. Critics of the royal finances have no real case. Last year, Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP, claimed: "If the Royal family are convinced they are offering value for money, they should subject themselves to the Freedom of Information Act like every other part of the public sector. Until there is that level of transparency, any rise should be resisted." Clearly, he was heedless of Walter Bagehot's maxim regarding the monarchy: "We must not let daylight in upon the magic." In any case, daylight is flooding in: from 2012, the Civil List will be audited by the National Audit Office, which will lay its findings before Parliament to be scrutinised if it wishes. The monarchy costs 69p a year for every person in Britain, or £1.33 per taxpayer. In return, besides the Crown Estate profits, there is the unquantifiable, but enormous, tourist revenue it generates. Claims that a republican head of state would be less costly are absurd. The German presidency costs about the same as the Queen, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name? In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million). Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas. Although the monarchy undoubtedly represents value for money, its true worth cannot be expressed in financial terms. It is the personification of the nation, the embodiment of our national identity. The monarchy is living history, a pageant of our past that remains relevant in the present and will continue to do so in the future. Constitutionally, it is the guarantor of stability: during the political impasse that followed the general election and the protracted negotiations, our governmental process did not miss a beat, since the Queen remained as the constitutional authority, ensuring continuity. She also gives authority a human face. In other countries, how many hospital wards are significantly cheered by the visit of a republican head of state, usually a political retread with partisan baggage? The additional advantage of a royal family, with several members carrying out official duties, is that many more engagements can be accommodated than any single president could ever perform. Bagehot also recognised that a family at the apex of society generated more interest than a solitary individual. In 2012, the Queen will celebrate her diamond jubilee. As a nation, we shall have much to give thanks for on that occasion. In faithful fulfilment of the promise she made on her accession to the throne, the Queen has served her people with total dedication. May she do so for years to come Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 Before anybody starts ranting about 'hangers on' and 'a republic would be cheaper', note that the cost is about the same as it is for Germany's president, whoever he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) Germany has a chancellor - Angela Merkel. You're right they have a president too. Never heard of him though. It gets a bit confusing where countries have a president and prime minister. eg Russia. Edited July 21, 2014 by parleycross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 And the article came from The Daily Telegraph, Tory admittedly, but also one of the quality broadsheets, so for the benefit of PB, NOT from The Daily 'Fail' (sic). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABL275 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Well here's £20 to keep them going for the next 12 years, God bless her! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 Even if 'we' pay for all of Kate's dresses, and Prince George's baby outfits, as soon as they appear in a new one, it sells out. Plenty of industries are subsidised by the tax payer and you don't hear the workers complaining about handouts for bludgers then do you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 Remember the hundreds of reporters and TV crews from all around the world camped outside the hospital waiting for George to arrive? Every one of them in a hotel room, buying food and drinks in London pubs, hotels and restaurants. I reckon that would more than offset the cost of her stay in hospital? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I feel a bit sorry for Charles. The Queen could easily live to 100 like her mother, so Charles will finally get to be king when he is a doddering old codger of 80. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 I feel a bit sorry for Charles.The Queen could easily live to 100 like her mother, so Charles will finally get to be king when he is a doddering old codger of 80. That is the way it goes. George VI died at 56 so Elizabeth became Queen at 26/27. Victoria was Queen at 18/19? Her son Edward VII was over 60. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 It's gone up then?! not the usual 35 pence per person any more lol,ahhh me heart bleeds for them,can't we give them vast swathes of land off which they can earn millions or something? oh we do dont we! and the met police picks up their security bill too,mind you,she only has a personal fortune of 350 mill,cant expect her to pay her own way out of that pittance,let the commoners pay say i God save the queen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 It's gone up then?! not the usual 35 pence per person any more lol,ahhh me heart bleeds for them,can't we give them vast swathes of land off which they can earn millions or something? oh we do dont we! and the met police picks up their security bill too,mind you,she only has a personal fortune of 350 mill,cant expect her to pay her own way out of that pittance,let the commoners pay say iGod save the queen! Read the article again. That cost per taxpayer is the cost of everything, including the cost of security, and does not take into account the money they generate from tourism. As I said, many industries that would otherwise be unprofitable, are subsidised by the taxpayer. Why? Following your logic, if the Royal Family is unprofitable, get rid of them and if any other industry is unprofitable, get rid of it. And the article has also compared the cost of comparable republics like Germany and France. If we get rid of the monarchy and replace it with a republic, we won't save any money and we could be worse off. So what is the point of becoming a republic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Read the article again. That cost per taxpayer is the cost of everything, including the cost of security, and does not take into account the money they generate from tourism. As I said, many industries that would otherwise be unprofitable, are subsidised by the taxpayer. Why? Following your logic, if the Royal Family is unprofitable, get rid of them and if any other industry is unprofitable, get rid of it. And the article has also compared the cost of comparable republics like Germany and France. If we get rid of the monarchy and replace it with a republic, we won't save any money and we could be worse off. So what is the point of becoming a republic? :laugh:Dave,i'm absolutely destroyed today,had to force meself to finish painting,so no offence,but i cba reading the article:wubclub:,i've read plenty on the royal family,and from unbiased sources.:smile: I cba debating it today,but if you want my opinions in depth,check the other royal threads out,no energy,done in! You dont understand do you? it's not about money,it's about the principle of an unelected family,having sole use of dozens of castles,Palaces,Duchy's,and the principle of them and us,us being the commoners,they are at the head of the class system in the UK,i don't agree with the class system. We wont ever get rid of the royals,i'm not daft,i know that,but i would take back the use of all properties and lands barring Windsor castle or Buckingham palace,plenty of room for them all in there isn't there? Then i would put it all to public(tax payer) use,going on your assertion how popular the royals are with tourists,people will pay thousands to stay in these places wont they?! The tourism thing is a myth,how many royal tourist attractions are in the top 20?see how many visitors the Palace of Versailles gets compared to Buck palace,and if she wasn't in Buck Palace it could "all" be open,and all year round Anyway,that's as much as yer getting out of me,cba:laugh:,but it's the principle,not the money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 :laugh:Dave,i'm absolutely destroyed today,had to force meself to finish painting,so no offence,but i cba reading the article:wubclub:,i've read plenty on the royal family,and from unbiased sources.:smile:I cba debating it today,but if you want my opinions in depth,check the other royal threads out,no energy,done in! You dont understand do you? it's not about money,it's about the principle of an unelected family,having sole use of dozens of castles,Palaces,Duchy's,and the principle of them and us,us being the commoners,they are at the head of the class system in the UK,i don't agree with the class system. We wont ever get rid of the royals,i'm not daft,i know that,but i would take back the use of all properties and lands barring Windsor castle or Buckingham palace,plenty of room for them all in there isn't there? Then i would put it all to public(tax payer) use,going on your assertion how popular the royals are with tourists,people will pay thousands to stay in these places wont they?! The tourism thing is a myth,how many royal tourist attractions are in the top 20?see how many visitors the Palace of Versailles gets compared to Buck palace,and if she wasn't in Buck Palace it could "all" be open,and all year round Anyway,that's as much as yer getting out of me,cba:laugh:,but it's the principle,not the money Fair enough, but having proposed destroying the present system, what do you propose to put in its place? How do you destroy the class system? How do you ensure those multi-millionaire footballers stay true to their working class roots? As soon as they get money they move out of the working class terraces, and join the middle classes in their million pound homes. How do you stop them taking their knighthoods? Sir Alex, Sir Bobby. Sir Ian. If Stevie Gerrard is given a knighthood, then following your logic, you will then disown him as a class traitor? There is no workable alternative to our present system. The republics are all as snobby and class-bound as the monarchies. The rich in America go to their exact equivalents of Eton and Harrow, and then to their equivalents of Oxbridge. It's the same in France, same in Germany, same in China of course, with the party elite enjoying the same privilleges. My basic argument is this? Can you propose a fairer system? One that works. One that is proven to work? What is the point of destroying something you hate, if you cannot replace it with something better? Spain got rid of its royal family, tried being a republic, then went back to being a monarchy? Why? Why did Britain bring back the King after 12 years of Cromwell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Fair enough, but having proposed destroying the present system, what do you propose to put in its place? How do you destroy the class system? How do you ensure those multi-millionaire footballers stay true to their working class roots? As soon as they get money they move out of the working class terraces, and join the middle classes in their million pound homes. Not destroying the present system,just cutting right back on the properties and land they have,the UK wont collapse if the royals weren't getting all the use of the duchy of Cornwall etc,just means they play a less significant role How do you stop them taking their knighthoods? Sir Alex, Sir Bobby. Sir Ian. If Stevie Gerrard is given a knighthood, then following your logic, you will then disown him as a class traitor? I dont agree with the civil list or knighthoods etc no,but cant influence others There is no workable alternative to our present system. The republics are all as snobby and class-bound as the monarchies. The rich in America go to their exact equivalents of Eton and Harrow, and then to their equivalents of Oxbridge. It's the same in France, same in Germany, same in China of course, with the party elite enjoying the same privilleges. My basic argument is this? Can you propose a fairer system? One that works. One that is proven to work? What is the point of destroying something you hate, if you cannot replace it with something better? Spain got rid of its royal family, tried being a republic, then went back to being a monarchy? Why? Why did Britain bring back the King after 12 years of Cromwell? Yes there is some truth in the above,but the class system is "enshrined" in all our laws and charters,it's different than the USA etc,its ingrained in us,i've already acknowledged we wont get rid of the royals,but i dont respect them,would never sing a national anthem about one person either,i just want the land and properties "properly" in public ownership,thats all,they wont be eating fray bentos pies,dont worry,right,thats as much as yer getting out of me,i only replied to the thread for the craic:tongue::laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 In 2012 the Queen will celebrate her Jubilee Year ? Err- its 2014. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob dc Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Oh dear too much ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 we should all pay a little more, have you seen Kate lately? she needs a good meal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 22, 2014 Author Share Posted July 22, 2014 2012, 2014, it does not matter. Elizabeth has been Queen since before I was born and I see how it was for Victorians, never knowing any monarch but Victoria. All those crowned heads came crashing down in WW1, but not in Britain. No violent revolutions for us, it's just NOT done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I feel a bit sorry for Charles.The Queen could easily live to 100 like her mother, so Charles will finally get to be king when he is a doddering old codger of 80. In the meantime he gets to lead as near a normal life as possible. I wouldn't want to be King for a $million a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 In the meantime he gets to lead as near a normal life as possible. I wouldn't want to be King for a $million a week. I agree, being born into that would be like a poison chalice, i would much rather just be normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob dc Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 we should all pay a little more, have you seen Kate lately? she needs a good meal. or get a job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Sir Peter Cosgrove has flown off to Holland today to receive the bodies of the Australians killed and I just think of him as our 'Head of State.' He hasn't gone of grovelling to the Queen before he performs that duty. I don't care, if strictly speaking, he is just her representative. Other members of the Royal Family do the same thing on her behalf, Prince William at Australia House last week for instance. I know that one or two members of the Royal Family could work harder perhaps, but most of them seem to spend day after day opening this, visiting that. William and Kate had two days off in a 3 week tour of Australia and NZ, and even got up at dawn for the Anzac Day service when they were not required to. Most people of the Queen and Prince Philip's age would have been retired 25 years ago. William and Harry are both in the armed services, and William would probably still be flying rescue helicopters if he hadn't had to do other royal duties. Harry wanted to serve on the front line. Prince Andrew certainly did in The Falklands War, as did Prince Philip in WW2 before he met the Queen, and he was forced to quit his navy career. If the UK or Australia were republics, I would not want to change them either. I am a conservative, but I also see it as a case of 'why fix it, if it ain't broke.' Some of the other countries' royal families stuffed up in a big way, and / or they lost wars. Mostly, we have avoided that, so there is nothing bad to change, and if it IS changed, what guarantee do we have it will be better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungfustu Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 intersting article......sort of puts all the arguments to bed really......you dont have to be a fan of the establishment to appreciate what they do for the country, not just the world wide recognition but the financial benefits that come with them......The pro footballers on the other hand......lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Britain had its violent revolution in 1649 - 30 January when they beheaded King Charles 1- long before the French or the Russians got round to it. After that there was no more 'absolute monarchy' and the ultimate power went to Parliament. The monarchy was never allowed to rule since that time, they became figureheads. Now is the time to abolish the figureheads, they are too expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 How much do they bring in to the UK economy ? Probably more than they cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.